Political discussion thread

Epignosis wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: King of Loss wrote: horsewithteeth11 wrote: King of Loss wrote: horsewithteeth11 wrote: I'd wish you luck on a wealth tax. 1) Good luck defining "wealth". 2) Assuming The Doc is referring to all assets somebody owns (correct me if I'm wrong though), then you would effectively destroy any potential for economic prosperity for any human being. You're going to have to explain how your version of a wealth tax would work, because the thought of one sounds ludicrous to me. Look at the other wealth taxes across the world in countries like France, India, Switzerland, etc. It's just a levy on wealth exceeding a certain amount. Wouldn't effect most people at all. So basically an income tax based on all your assets? I still don't like the sound of it. I think like Logan said, you'd see a lot more farmers sell their land, not to mention I think you would definitely see more people who fall in that tax category move elsewhere. IRS will get you regardless of where you move... The very idea of a wealth tax (property taxes, too) is appalling to me.  I quite understand the notion that everyone should have to contribute a portion of what they earn to support the functioning of the government and the programs it is responsible for.  When taxation becomes theft, in my opinion, is when the government starts taxing you on the things you've already earned or paid for.  Doesn't that include your income too?  You put your time and energy into something, so you've earned it.  Then the government takes a portion of your pay?  Is that good?

Logan's post above explained it better than I could.  I see your point, but I don't think income taxes are quite the same thing.  An income tax is the government laying claim to a certain percentage of each paycheck you get.  The rest is yours.  A property or wealth tax is the government essentially laying claim to everything you own.  That is dangerously close to communism.  Like Logan said, when property and wealth taxes are in effect, you can never truly own anything. 

Epignosis wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Epignosis wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: King of Loss wrote: horsewithteeth11 wrote: King of Loss wrote: horsewithteeth11 wrote: I'd wish you luck on a wealth tax. 1) Good luck defining "wealth". 2) Assuming The Doc is referring to all assets somebody owns (correct me if I'm wrong though), then you would effectively destroy any potential for economic prosperity for any human being. You're going to have to explain how your version of a wealth tax would work, because the thought of one sounds ludicrous to me. Look at the other wealth taxes across the world in countries like France, India, Switzerland, etc. It's just a levy on wealth exceeding a certain amount. Wouldn't effect most people at all. So basically an income tax based on all your assets? I still don't like the sound of it. I think like Logan said, you'd see a lot more farmers sell their land, not to mention I think you would definitely see more people who fall in that tax category move elsewhere. IRS will get you regardless of where you move... The very idea of a wealth tax (property taxes, too) is appalling to me.  I quite understand the notion that everyone should have to contribute a portion of what they earn to support the functioning of the government and the programs it is responsible for.  When taxation becomes theft, in my opinion, is when the government starts taxing you on the things you've already earned or paid for.  Doesn't that include your income too?  You put your time and energy into something, so you've earned it.  Then the government takes a portion of your pay?  Is that good? Logan's post above explained it better than I could.  I see your point, but I don't think income taxes are quite the same thing.  An income tax is the government laying claim to a certain percentage of each paycheck you get.  The rest is yours.  A property or wealth tax is the government essentially laying claim to everything you own.  That is dangerously close to communism.  Like Logan said, when property and wealth taxes are in effect, you can never truly own anything.  My income is my property, though, no?

Yes, but I would argue that the income tax is a transfer tax.  The government is taxing the transfer of money between you and your employer, or you and your customers if you own a business.  Maybe I'm wrong about this, but that's how I understand it.  Anyways, there's a difference between the government taking a percentage of the income as it comes to you and the government perpetually taxing everything you earn.  With an income tax, you can really own something.  Your paycheck gets docked a certain amount to support the government and then it's yours.  With a property or wealth tax, you earn or buy something and it's still not yours because you essentially have to pay rent on it to the government.

King of Loss wrote: I prefer the land tax over the income tax, because it mostly hits big landowners and such, while income taxes almost always hurts the middle class.

It wouldn't hurt the middle class so much if the government cut taxes.  Creating another tax on the rich isn't going to fix the problem we already have.  I don't really care who bears the brunt of the blow of property/wealth taxes; I still think they're unethical and oppressive.

By the way, of what political/economic persuasion are you?  I was just wondering as you seem to argue on all sides a lot.


Edited by Ambient Hurricanes - December 10 2012 at 21:51

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: King of Loss wrote: I prefer the land tax over the income tax, because it mostly hits big landowners and such, while income taxes almost always hurts the middle class. It wouldn't hurt the middle class so much if the government cut taxes.  Creating another tax on the rich isn't going to fix the problem we already have.  I don't really care who bears the brunt of the blow of property/wealth taxes; I still think they're unethical and oppressive.

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: horsewithteeth11 wrote: @AH: I don't think you can really call an income tax a transfer tax. A transfer tax is a tax levied against transferring documents or property certainly (and your income could be considered your property). But I think a transfer tax would apply more to gift or estate taxes. Literally, the person who was receiving the income would have to actually be selling it to a third party for it to be considered a transfer tax. While I agree with Robert, I'm really just picking at that specific. I'm probably using the term "transfer tax" incorrectly.  What I'm trying to say is that a distinction can be made between an income tax, which taxes the exchange of money between you and your employer, and a property/wealth tax, which taxes your assets.  Am I wrong in making that distinction, too?  Or is it just a question of semantics with the particular term "transfer tax"?

I was mostly arguing semantics. I agree there's a difference between and income tax and a property/wealth tax. I was just clarifying what a transfer tax is specifically (I'm a Finance major and I'm just finishing up a course on Estate Planning, so I've learned way too much about transfer taxes ).

I'd still say it's more a tax against you specifically. Now if your employer got taxed before they transferred that money to you, then I would say you are correct. But I view it solely as a tax on the person earning the income. There are certain financial instruments, like certain types of 401-k plans, that receive that double taxation in the method you describe, but income isn't one as far as I'm aware.

The military couldn't have been any more surprised by Sylvan than the Idaho state income-tax office, which made the colossal mistake of sending Hart a whole series of letters saying he hadn't paid his taxes. Buckskin finally got dressed in his best stag skins and coonskin cap, took along a rifle and ample supply of provisions and presented himself at the tax office. "I surrender," he told the slack-jawed bureaucrats. They sent him home and promised fervently never to bother him again.

Howard Dean has said that "going over the fiscal cliff" is the best thing progressives could do.  They would get huge tax increases plus large defense cuts, certainly a better deal than a compromise will yield.  I heard him advocate for Obama doing this. 

Curious if our Dem friends here  agree with the Governor. 

dtguitarfan wrote: Finnforest wrote: Howard Dean has said that "going over the fiscal cliff" is the best thing progressives could do.  They would get huge tax increases plus large defense cuts, certainly a better deal than a compromise will yield.  I heard him advocate for Obama doing this.  Curious if our Dem friends here  agree with the Governor.  Well, I would prefer that we didn't "go over the cliff".  But if we do, I don't think it'll be the end of the world.  It'll be tough, for sure, but not the end of the world.  And it seems to me like Obama has tried very hard to compromise with the Republicans and they just are not budging, but are sticking to the various myths they believe instead.  So, if that's what it takes - I say go over the darn thing!

Or you could see it the other way, as the Republicans trying to compromise and Obama not budging!  Honestly, I think they'll probably get a deal done at the last minute; both sides are going to be stubborn in order to gain an advantage for final negotiations and to try and pressure the other side into giving in.  I don't have any great confidence in the intelligence of the members of congress (republican or democrat), but surely the Republicans aren't dense enough not to notice that the fiscal cliff would raise taxes much more than Obama's proposal would.  There are times when sticking to your guns is just counter-productive.

You got that right. 

And I almost hope the Bush tax cuts do expire.  If the middle class wants all this crushing spending, I guess they should be willing to pay for it. 

Finnforest wrote: Howard Dean has said that "going over the fiscal cliff" is the best thing progressives could do.  They would get huge tax increases plus large defense cuts, certainly a better deal than a compromise will yield.  I heard him advocate for Obama doing this.  Curious if our Dem friends here  agree with the Governor.

I'm on the fence about this. Howard Dean's points are attractive, but it's very sweeping and grandiose, (part of what makes it attractive). I'm trying to find out if federal funding of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium will be negatively affected. This would trouble me a great deal. I've heard claims too that it would cause a lowering of the nation's GDP. I'm uncomfortable with that because our national debt is normally counterbalanced by a high GDP.